DescriptionAfter a spectacular crash-landing on an uncharted planet, brash astronaut Leo Davidson (Mark Wahlberg) finds himself trapped in a savage world where talking apes dominate the human race. Desperate to find a way home, Leo must evade the invincible gorilla army led by ruthless General Thade (Tim Roth) and his most trusted warrior, Attar (Michael Clarke Duncan). Now the pulse-pounding race is on to reach a sacred temple that may hold the shocking secrets of mankind’s past – an… More >>

5 Responsed To This Post

When I saw Planet of the Apes with Charleston Heston, not just in 67 but years afterwards as a television movie, and finally a vidoe I owned. I was struck by the hopelessness of Life in Ape city and Taylors predicament. The whole cycle of sequels ends with the destruction of the earth at the dying hands of Taylor.

Tim Burton’s remake offers a more positive possible ending, Even if the Hero doesn’t survive. Humanity is still intelligent and fed up to the back teeth with being enslaved. So the hero in this case will not go through the gauntlet alone. The slaves are ready to revolt, and like a house soaked with gasoline, all they need is a spark and the fires will be seen for miles.

I actually think the makeup artists come closer to portraying real apes. The male orangutans depicted in the film look like real males specimens we would find in a zoo. The realism is more then makeup deep. Not all chimpanzees are nice friendly animals, some are cannibalistic, and they do hunt old world monkeys for their meat.

I wish I could see the movie on it’s release date, but see it I will.
Rating: 5 / 5

From what I’ve seen about the Tim Burton’s remake of ‘Planet of the Apes’ (MTV recently showed a brief ‘behind the scenes’ for the making of Tim Burton’s ‘Planet of the Apes’) it looks to me like he definitely is going to do it justice. But what I want to know is how can anyone really compare the original with the remake? Both seem like two, totally different films and Tim Burton himself stated that he wasn’t trying to ‘remake’ this sci-fi classic, but rather provide his own perspective and make a distinctly unique film from the original.

Also, the make-up effects in both films involved the same individual creative genius, Rick Baker (if I’m not mistaken). OF COURSE what you see today is going to be better than previously in 1967 (we are talking about more than 30 years ago!!!!). The original film was ahead of it’s time, both in terms of its look and message and I look forward to seeing how Tim Burton is going to do justice to this classic sci-fi film.
Rating: 4 / 5

Planet of the Apes is the same thing over and over. My advice to you is to go and see Jurassic Park 3. Jurassic Park 3 is better, it has humor and a real plot. Plus, parts of the Jurassic Park series could really come true before apes could ever take over the world. Science has come a long way, so in my opinion, if you give some rich scientist, like in Jurassic Park, you probably could get a real live dinosaur. Jurassic Park 3 is 9 stars better than Planet of the Apes. Supporting apes is nuts, apes could never take over the world, dinosaurs could back to life. Before you go to see Planet of the Apes, look at the facts, it couldn’t happen, dinosaurs could happen.
Rating: 1 / 5

First let start off by saying that this is not a remake of the 1968 classic but a totally different telling of the story. I respect Tim Burton for not trying to do your basic remake, which consists of updated special effects but the same story. The story in this movie is entirely different than the original. Other than the fact that Apes are involved there are very few similarities. The story is well thought out and keeps you engaged throughout the movie. Tim Burton also knew that Mark Wahlberg is no Charlton Heston, so he kept his dialogue to a minimal. Actually Tim Roth and Michael Duncan Clark have more dialogue in the movie than Wahlberg does. Rick Baker does an outstanding job with the makeup, which allows the actors facial expressions to come through which is key for this type of movie. I will not ruin the ending but will tell you that it is unique and as unexpected as the first one was in 1968. Now onto the DVD, the Anamorphic transfer is flawless and the DTS 5.1 soundtrack is superb. The video shows no signs of edge enhancement, artifacting, or color bleeds. The blacks are deep and rich and all the colors are vibrant. The DTS 5.1 audio track is just awesome; it utilizes the rears and subwoofer frequently. All dialogue is focused on the center channel and is well balanced. The DVD has more special features than any other DVD to date. There are at least 6 documentaries, a “first person” point of view feature, and all the other normal fanfare that comes with a special edition DVD. This by far and wide is Fox’s best DVD to date as it pertains to special features.
Rating: 4 / 5

Basically this movie was meant to predict the future and perhaps even serves as a warning to some people. It’s an allegory about europeans enslaving africans and bring them to a new land. Through harsh conditions the africans adapt and eventually dominate and outnumber the europeans. certain europeans fight and return to europe where everyone’s suppose to be european. However it turned out europe has been occupied by africans as well. the comparison is so blatant that it couldn’t be any more clearer.
Rating: 5 / 5